



ANTIDOTE 



REV. H. J. VAN DYKE'S 



i PRO-SLAVERY DISCOURSE, 



REV. WM. H. BOOLE. 



AMERICAN SLAVERY HAS NO FOUNDATION IN THE SCRIPTURES/' ([A 

^ *-,^^ 



DEI.IVF.RKD IN THE 



M. E. CHURCH, MOUNT VERNON, NEW YORK, ps 

On Sunday, January 13, 1861. 




ANTIDOTE 



REV. H. J. VAN DYKE'S 



PRO-SLAYERY DISCOURSE, 



REV. WM. H. BOOLE. 



"AMERICAN SLAVERY HAS NO FOUNDATION IN THE SCRIPTURES. 



DELIVERED IN THE 



M, E. CHURCH, MOUxXT VERNON, NEW YORK, 

On Sunday, January 13, 1861. 



NEW YORK: 

EDMUND JONES & CO., PRINTERS AND STATIONERS, 

No. 26 .Ton.f Street. 

1861. 



4 ^■"' 



SERMON 



Is. V : 20. "Woe unto them that call evil good : (Heb. : that say concerning evil, it is 
good:) that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and 
sweet for bitter." 

Surely, the condemnation of the text was never more fully 
deserved by any, than by those " blind leaders of the blind," 
who, in this age and day of Gospel light and influence, have 
lifted up their voice, in the pulpit of the church of God, to de- 
fend, and attempt to cover Avith the sanction of divine enact- 
ments, that which is the condensation of barbarism, the only 
remaining relic and last vestige of an odious institution, 
founded in iniquity and perpetuated in fraud, and an utter dis- 
regard of all the holy claims of humanity — American slavery ! 

We propose to discuss the sermon of the Rev. Henry J. Van 
Dyke, of Brooklyn, preached in his church on Sabbath evening, 
December 9th last, 1860, on " The Character and Influence of 
Abolitionism," in which Slavery — American slavery — is lauded 
as a divine institution, and lifted to the high position of an 
appointed agency in the salvation of the human race. 

This we deny. And we accept the " sublime challenge " 
and appeal against him, " to the law and the testimony." " We 
are not blind devotees, to bow down to the dictation of any man. 
We acknowledge in this place but one standard of morals, but 
one authoritative and infallible rule of faith and practice — the 
Bible." From that book of God, wherein we are taught the 
precept of the Golden Rule, "As ye would have others do 
to you, do ye even so to them," that " this is acceptable unto 
God," " to break the bands of the oppressed," the Rev. Mr, 
Van Dyke attempts to draw his proofs in defense of a vile 
system of slavery, " the sum of all villanies." Randolph, him- 
self a slaveholder, truly said : " I envy not the head nor the 



heart of that man that seeks to defend slavery from the word 
of God " 

I have prepared a single proposition on the subject of 
slavery, to maintain and defend with the word of God, " which 
is the sword of the Spirit." 

The last three theses of Mr. Van Dyke's discourse, " Abolition- 
ism leads by logical process to infidelity," &c., &c., I summarily 
dispose of by a simple and absolute denial of their relevancy 
and of the statements therein contained ; they are a web of 
misrepresentations unworthy the subject and the position of 
their author. 

I shall confine myself to the Scripture argument, the first 
proposition of the discourse, "Abolitionism has no foundation 
in the scriptures." 

The reverse of this I hold to maintain, American slavery 
has no foundation in the Scriptures. 

Mr. Van Dyke first defines the term " Abolitionist." " What 
is an Abolitionist? He is one who believes that slaveholding 
is a sin, and therefore ought to be abolished. This is the fun- 
damental, the characteristic, the essential characteristic of 
Abolitionism, that slaveholding is sin, a crime in the sight of 
God, He must believe that slaveholding is morally wrong." 

This we accept, after simply snbstituting the term "sla- 
very" for " slaveholding." We prefer striking at the root of 
the tree. Slaveholding is its branch and fruit. And in this 
discussion Mr. Van Dyke uses the word "slaveholding" as a 
gloss to hide the true intent of Scripture, and to avoid the full 
bearing of facts which make against his argument. 

Under the head of his first thesis, " Abolitionism has no 
foundation in the Scriptures," Mr. Van Dyke has a cunningly 
devised argument, in which, by a species of legerdemain, he 
wraps the garments of ancient divine ordinances around all 
slavery, including Southern slaveholding, and thus dressed in 
borrowed robes to hide its deformity, baptizes it as " an im- 
portant and necessary process in their (the slaves') transition 
from heathenism to Cliristianity." 



Purposely keeping wide of a discussion on the causes, nature, 
and practical workings of Slavery under the Mosaic dispensa- 
tion, he assumes that God gave commandments sanctioning 
and governing that, and as he could " never anywhere counte- 
nance that which is morally wrong," therefore it follows that 
slavery is right now. And further, as there is no prohibition 
of it in the New Testament, it was therefore " intended to be 
continued," and the conclusion is, it is " continued'^ in Southern 
slavery. 

This may be an ingenious defense, but it does not include a 
statement of the truth. It is putting darkness for light. There 
are points of difference between Jewish bondage and Ameri- 
can slavery, which put these systems as wide apart as heaven 
and earth. Slavery among the Jews was a mitigation of the 
sentence of extermination against the heathen nations that 
had "filled up the cup of their iniquity" and called down upon 
them the wrath of Almighty God. These people were captives 
of war, reduced to a condition of national servitude, com- 
pletely in the power of their captoi-s. 

No people are so disposed to cruelty, and the abuse of 
power, especially when suddenly acquired, as those that have 
themselves suffered in vassalage. The history of every suc- 
cessful revolution made by the lower classes, the ignorant and 
degraded of a nation, is a commentary upon this truth. 

Now we know, from the divine records, that the Israelites, 
just taken by a " strong arm," from a grinding and most 
degrading slavery of four hundred years' duration, were 
ignorant, degraded, hard of understanding, willful and rebel- 
lious, a hard-hearted and stiff-necked race. 

This is the inspired testimony concerning this people through 
generations. The curb and bit of the severest enactments and 
penalties, issued by Jehovah amid thunders and lightnings, 
were necessary to their restraint. The nation of the Jews 
suddenly found themselves in possession of the long-sought 
land of promise. Successful in every battle, by the power of 
God, from being a nation despised, they were rulers over kings 
and many nations. 



To prevent the abuse of this power, which was given the 
Jews for the good of the world as much as for their own profit 
and g'h)ry, they were forbidden by divine enactments to exercise 
the right claimed by all conquerors of forcibly reducing to 
abject and uncompensated slavery their captives. God there- 
fore enacted, "Both your bondmen and bondmaids, which thou 
shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you. 
Of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids" (they shall not 
be taken by force and for naught because ye have conquered 
them). " He that stealeth a man shall surely be put to death." 

Now, this was a step in advance in civilization and morals, 
of the laws and customs of those barbarous times concerning- 
the disposition of the inhabitants of conquered countries. 

It is a matter of history that the victors had full power of 
life and death over their captives, could subject them to punish- 
ment and violence and abuse of authority without "let or 
hindrance." By this enactment all this abuse by the Jews 
was prohibited and restrained. Such was the intention of this 
prohibition. Mr. Van Dyke says that by this enactment slavery 
was "anticipated." Yes, slavery by the fate of war, in which 
the Jews, at command of God, were soon to engage for the 
extermination of heathen nations, whose " cup of iniquity" was 
full to the brim, but which were, in part, by the disobedience 
of the Israelites, permitted to remain among them, and became 
" thorns in their flesh." And this enactment " anticipated " also 
the abuse of acquired power, by their ignorant, stiff-necked, and 
hard-hearted Israelitish conquerors. 

This divine enactment did not "anticipate" slavery by fraud, 
man-stealing, the selling of spurious offspring, the unjust appro- 
priation of the fruits of unacknowledged and brutally repudiated 
marriage ties. Such by nature and growth is American slav- 
ery. And for such, no provision has been made by divine 
authority, in Old or New Testament, save to punish the willful 
and wicked participators in such iniquities. 

Our minds arc not to be blinded by any jingle of words, to 
the fact that the subject treated of in this whole discussion, to 



be proved or disproved from the word of God, is Southern 
negro slavery, none other. If it can be shown that these oracles, 
to whose aiithority we reverently bow, do " sanction" sxich a 
system of bondage, well ; if not, " woe to them that pervert the 
rig-ht ways of the Lord, and put darkness for light, and say of 
evil, it is good." Under this institution of mercy, Hebrew 
slavery, established for the moral education of the people of 
God, and for the improvement of the condition of the heathen 
around them, there was a recognition and respect of the rights 
of the marriage relation among the bondmen. Children were 
not separated from parents and sold apart. The chastity of 
the bondmaid was held sacred; if she was humbled by her 
master, he was forbidden to send her away or to sell her. 
Also, they were to be the inheritance of their children after 
them, held an entailed property. It was not a promiscuous 
and unrestrained traffic. 

Slavery is the normal condition of no part of our race. " God 
has made of one blood all nations that dwell upon the earth." 
He is no respecter of persons. The evil passions of men have 
produced all the evil results of oppression, fraud and violence, 
which we behold scattered through the earth. 

Freedom is the primitive condition of man, and towards this 
all good causes tend. Ancient slavery, including Jewish, was 
the fruit of war, and grew out of the subjugation of the people 
of one nation to those of another. It was a barbarism. So is 
war itself, which is contrary to the principles of righteousness, 
underlying all the dispensations which together form the 
redemption scheme of the world's salvation. 

Slavery followed in the wake of war, as a natural result, and 
in the case of the Jews, the abuse of the appropriation of the 
spoils of victory, was prevented by the wise and beneficent 
restriction, " Ye shall buy your bondmen and bondmaids of the 
heathen that are round about you." Here is a positive act for- 
bidding the exercise of the then universally acknowledged 
right of the conqueror to his captives. This was *' bringing 
good out of evil." A subsequent reversion of the condition of 



8 

those captive nations was at once followed by a complete 
change in theix" relations towards their masters. Success in 
war was the jubilee of emancipation, and the captives returned 
to their normal state of freedom. And no divine ordinance 
was enacted covering the assumed right of the master to 
recover his fugitive slave in such case. Self-emancipation by 
such recognized means was the right of the slave. If he 
could gain his liberty, "he was (as Paul teaches) to use it 
rather." " Against such there was no law." And the Almighty 
established the precedent by evading the provisions and 
authority of the " unconstitutional" " fugitive slave law" of the 
Egyptians, and bringing a whole nation out of bondage " with 
a high hand," after commanding the slaves to " borrow" all the 
jewels they could of their masters, and keep possession as part 
payment of ai'rearages of four hundred years' wages of servi- 
tude. As a further preventive to the undue exercise of the 
master's authority, it was provided that the slave that had 
escaped from his master was not to be returned, but permitted 
to dwell in the land to which he had escaped wheresoever he 
chose. 

They were also to be instructed in the true religion, taught 
to observe the commandments of the Lord, and in every respect, 
physical, mental and moral, were to be trained into an improved 
condition of civilization. Such was, in brief, the origin, nature, 
characteristics, and practical workings of Jewish bondage. 

And now I throw down the gauntlet, and challenge the proof 
from this divine record, that the " Lord God, true and righteous," 
ever established, sanctioned, anticipated, provided for, justi- 
fied, or excused slaveholding of Southern kind, originating in 
unlawful incursions into the territory of peaceable, inofiensive, 
and weak nations, occupying no "promised land" given bj- 
covenant of God to the invaders, guilty of no depredations upon 
the property of their assailants, not having filled up the cup of 
their iniquity, and been given over to a decree of extermina- 
tion. Forcibly dragging the inhabitants, without respect of 
sex or condition, from their native land ; crowding the manacled 



and helpless masses into the narrow " between-decks " of the 
pirate slaver, there to endure all the written and unwritten 
horrors of the purgatory of the " middle passage" on their voy- 
age to Columbia's fair land of — liberty ! 

Mr. Van Dyke asks, Where is "the prohibition of slavery in 
the Bible"? Here it is, in both Old and New Testaments: 
"Thou shalt not steal," "He that stealeth a man, and selleth 
him, or if he be found in his hand, shall surely be put to death." 
Paul classes " man-stealers with murderers of fathers, murder- 
ers of mothers," with the most abominable of sinners. I pin 
down all opposers to this. No quibbling, no evasion, meet the 
question. Do not the whole Scriptures, old and new, in letter 
and in spirit strike the death-blow of God's anathema at this, 
the root and growth of American slavery ? 

I use the language of Mr. Van Dyke, changing but a word 
or two, to suit the better use of it : "When men tell me that 
slaveholding is" not "sin, in the simplicity of my faith in the 
Holy Scriptures, I point to this sacred record, and tell them, 
in all candor, as my text does, that their teaching blasphemes 
the name of God and his doctrine." Further, where is the act 
sanctioning the means whereby this sj^stem is perpetuated? 
The repudiation of the tender, sacred, heaven-instituted, Christ- 
honored bonds of the marriage relation ? Of the refusal to 
parents of their own offspring ? The right to tear the moaning 
child from its robbed and shrieking mother, and selling it to 
one, the father to another, and the mother to a third ? Where 
is the divine act which says that "the slave has no rights which 
the white master is bound to respect ? " The Scripture sanction 
for holding as a slave, and selling as such, the illegitimate off- 
spring of the white master ? For the establishment of slave 
nurseries for the production and growth of human " chattels " 
to supply the markets left empty by failures in the speedy 
returns of foreign importation by pirate-slavers ? 

Where is there a place in the Bible for the Southern auction 
block, where the handsome, full developed form of the fair slave 
girl, whose long wavy hair, adorning her brow and finely 



10 

chiselled features, sculptured in the cream-colored flesh of un- 
mistakable Anglo-Saxon pedigree, speaks her a blood-relation 
of her inhuman owner, is put up to be sold to the highest bidder, 
among the eagerly betting gentlemen of the crowd, for profit 
and dishonor ? These are all parts of the system of American 
slavery — integral parts. These are its origin, its nature, its 
characteristics. 

These are not excrescences which protrude upon a healthy 
body ; they are the hone and flesh andheating heart of the system. 
They are not the filthy rags covering a fair form, hiding for 
the while its beauty, but which, when stripped and washed, 
present to the eye the features of loveliness beneath. They 
are the naked outlines of a body deformed in every part, a mass 
of rottenness from head to foot, from bone to skin. 

Mr. Van Dyke says : "It is often said that if the Bible does 
sanction slavery, it does not sanction American slavery. I 
ansAver, neither does it sanction the system of American mar- 
riage, if by system is meant every thing connected with the 
practical workings of the relation." 

Now all this is sophistry, an evading of the point, the put- 
ting one thing in the place of another thing, by a false defini- 
tion and play upon a word. " If by the word .system is meant 
every thing connected with the practical workings of the two 
relations," says Mr. Van Dyke, the word " system" means no 
such thing. "System" is the integral, the fundamental parts 
of a whole plan or scheme, so connected as to make a chain of 
mutual dependencies. Now what are the integral parts of 
American marriage ? (This word " American" is a gloss ; mar- 
riage among us is not American or English, 'tis Christian.) 

1st. The recognition of the sacredness of the relation. 
2d. The imposition of vows by which the contracting parties 
covenant to live together " after God^s ordinance, in the holy 
bands of matrimony." 3d. The performance of suitable cere- 
monies involving the taking of the above solemn obligation by 
the contracting parties, before a legally authorized minister of 
the law, or of the Gospel. This system is not " full of evil and 



11 

iniquity." Mr. Van Dyke says that these are parts of the 
" system: " " husbands beat and poison their wives," "multi- 
tudes of parents suffer their children to grow up in filth and 
ig-norance," and " divorce cases are enough to poison the foun- 
tains of virtue in every family where they are read." Now 
Mr. Van Dyke never read " definitions," or he knows that all 
these things are forbidden by the covenant of marriage, and 
by the laws of every Christian state, and are no part of the 
system whatever. But now what are the integral, essential 
parts of the " system" of American slavery — fundamental 
parts holding it together ? 

Man-stealing is its base, its lowest stratum, its corner-stone. 
This is the quarry from whence the whole material for the 
superstructure was broken out. Without this "base" there is 
no foundation to build upon ; without the material thus fur- 
nished, there would have been no such " institution" raised. 
Here then is one essential part. Another necessary link is 
the utter disregard of the marriage ties, giving the right to 
separate and sell apart parents and children. The acknowledg- 
ment of the rights of that relation, as they are acknowledged 
here amongst us, where Mr. Van Dyke says marriage is "full 
of iniquity and evil," would ruin the whole fabric of slavery 
in fifty years. Other essential parts are slave-nurseries and 
the auction block. And to show that all these are parts of the 
syMem, and not abuses of its practical workings, we say there 
is no law nor healthy prevailing sentiment in the Southern States 
against any of these things. 

National law prohibits the slave-trade, it is true, but the 
South has opened it with a vigor which shows it considers that 
law no part of a Southern code or policy. 

Mr. Van Dyke says, that he " believes slavery to be an 
important and ?iecessa?'y process in their (the slaves') transition 
from heathenism to Christianity." Remember, the reverend gen- 
tleman means Southern slavery. I don't want to get the argu- 
ment off that track. And, now, will a professed Christian man 
lay all the burden of this " sum of villanies" upon the divine 



12 

framing of the redemption scheme of mankind ? Say, that 
"an important and necessary process in that scheme is the 
stealing of men, women, and children? The piratical slave- 
trade, adultery, fornication, and the dissolution of the marriage 
ties ? 

Will he dare to tell the frowning world that a " necessary 
process " in God's purposes is the protection of this unparal- 
leled institution of fraud, in the circumscribed locality and 
narrow borders of a small Southern confederacy, against the 
united protest of all the Christian nations, that unanimously 
declare that the doctrine of God is blasphemed, by a threat- 
ened spread of the evil ? 

That this moral monstrosity, conceived in sin , shapen in 
iniquity, and untimely born from the womb of hell, is a child of 
God's providexce ? Does he intend to " slanderously report " 
of God, "let us do evil that good may come," "whose dam- 
nation is just " ? 

That God can bring good out of evil, we believe ; but " evil" 
is not by such results changed into " good ;" its bad nature 
remains unaltered. God brings good out of evil by either 
neutralizing or overcoming it— not by calling evil " good." 

Mr. Van Dyke knows that there is not in the whole system, its 
origin or nature, the slightest shading of philanthropy or Christi- 
anity. The slave-trade was established and is carried on for sor- 
did profit, filthy lucre — nothing- else. IIow many missionaries 
have devoted themselves to the calling ? Who huys the slaves 
in the markets ? Christian societies, to instruct them in the 
rudiments of God's gospel ? No ; they are bought for work, 
for profit — nothing more. Who ever knew of a slave in the 
South educated for the purpose of raising him to the dignity 
of his manhood ? Does not the law of the South forbid the 
teaching of a slave to read ? Is he taught that he is a man 
by creation and divine appointment, and should seek to rise to 
the attainment of such estate ? 

'Tis true that some masters do permit their slaves to hear a 
part of the gospel preached from the lips of ministers who 



13 

favor the system of slavery. But what an apology for a 
christianizing mission ! They are not permitted to learn to read 
the word of God for themselves, they are never sent back to 
Ethiopia with the g-lad tidings of Christ. They remain in bond- 
age, subject exclusively to the control of their masters, none 
of whom has ever heard a "divine call" to send his slave, as a 
missionary, to Africa, or elsewhere, nor acknowledged any 
higher position for him than that of "chattel." 

Mr. Van Dyke must know that this whole system, in origin, 
nature, and in the bias of the laws of Southern States sustain- 
ing it, together with the practical workings of it, are all op- 
posed to the sjnrit and spread of Christiayiiti/, and the only way 
in which he can prove satisfactorily that it is " an important 
and necessary process, in their transition from heathenism to 
Christianity," is to show by the word of God that it is the 
Lord's will and decree that Africa shall empty all her inhabitants 
into the Southern States through the missionary efforts of the slave- 
traders. Until then, he is no authority for me nor you. 

The reverend gentleman has ingeniously joined together in 
his argument the Old and New Testament records, and by rais- 
ing the former to the glory of the latter, he proposes that we 
receive it as equal in authority with the New Testament — 
indeed, as part of the Gospel. And this is the way he does it. 
He finds slavery in the Old Testament among the Jews 
(though he does not tell us its origin nor the circumstances 
under which it existed), with a distinct enactment governing 
it. In the New Testament he finds directions to "servants 
under the yoke" (slaves), instructing them to count their 
masters worthy of all honor, etc., and not a single sentence 
nor word repealing or annulling the Jewish law on the sub- 
ject. Some matters of Jewish law were noticed and annulled, 
but this most important enactment was not. And all this (he 
thinks) makes up a chain of proof, running through old and 
new records, confirming his argument that slavery is a divine 
institution, under both dispensations. Now I wish to state a 
simple fact to break the links of this chain by a blow : Jew- 



14 



ish slavery was extinct at the time of Christ's appearance, 
and has never been renewed since. There was no need of 
annulling the act. It was self-annulled, obsolete, dead. 

" But why," we are asked," did not Christ rebuke the prevail- 
ing practice (Roman slavery) as he did polygamy and unlawful 
divorce r The personal mission of Christ was to the Jews only. 
" I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." 
So exclusive were his ministrations in this respect, that even 
after the day of Pentecost, it required a miracle to convince 
Peter that the Gentiles were included in the redemption by 
Christ. Unlawful divorce was practised by the Jews— slavery 
was not; therefore Christ speaks of the one, and not of the 
other. 

Christianity succeeded Judaism— not heathenism— and the 
teachings of Christ were to the end to show God's chosen peo- 
ple-the Jews-the marks of difference and superiority be- 
tween, m all respects, that imperfect, dark, and transient dis- 
pensation, which was but the ^'shadoiv of good things to come " 
and the full and perfect ministration which is the ^^very sub- 
stance of the things." He did not intermeddle with Roman 
state policy, and actually submitted to unlawful exaction, and 
taught his disciples so to do rather than "offend them," or 
awaken unnecessary opposition. In Matt. H : 24 etc ' we 
read: "And when they were come to Capernaum, they 'that 
received tribute came to Peter and said, Doth not your master 
pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into 
the house, Jesus prevented him, saying. What thinkest thou 
Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or 
tribute ? of their own children, or of strangers ? Peter saith 
to him, Of strangers. Jesus saith, Then are the children 
Jree; nevertheless, lest we should of end them, go thou to the 
sea and cast a hook, and take the fish that first cometh up • 
and when thou hast opened his moutli, thou shalt find a piece 
of ntoney: that take, and give unto them for me and thee " 
Was the paying of the tribute an acknowledgment of the 



15 

lawfulness of their demand ?* By no means. Yet lie nowhere 
speaks against the extortion of the government, nor does he 
counsel the Jews to resist the payment of the unlawful tax to 
which they were subjected by Roman law. 

Now slavery was in the same relation with the law of tribute ; 
it was an integral part of the policy of the Roman govern- 
ment, and the reason why Christ did not protest against the 
one, is the same that prevented him from preaching against 
the other. He came not to reform or overthrow temporal gov- 
ernments, destroy their policy, abrogate their laws, and 
build his church upon the ruins of their civil institutions; His 
" kingdom was not of this world." He came to set up a 7iew 
kingdom — a !<plrltual, whose principles of universal charity, of 
brotherly love, and of entire holiness, were to be sown in the 
minds and hearts of men, individually and experimentally 
receiving it, until through the prevalence of its spirit and pro- 
fession it should become ' ' a power on the earth," and under- 
mine, subvert, absorb, and destroy, by a natural and legiti- 
mate process, the evils of political and social policy. It was 
the " stone cut out of the mountain without hands," which was 
to spread and fill the whole earth. The evident intention of 
Mr. Van Dyke, in the use of his argument, is to incorporate 
Judaism into Christianity, at least so far as its slavery insti- 
tution and enactments go, and to force us to accept them as 
essential parts of a great whole, as indeed being " Gospel" in 
spirit and requirement. We beg leave to be excused from 
swallowing so large and nauseous a pill. And then in his 
procedure, he is very coaxing. For instance, from the Old 
Testament he culls the texts sanctioning slavery of one kind, 
then from the New he digs the fact that the Gospel says noth- 
ing against another kind (Roman), and then brings us to his 
own infallible conclusion, which we are to take down with our 
eyes shut, that thereby the Bible establishes a third (South- 

* Also, when Christ said to the woman taken in adultery, " Neither do I accuse thee," did 
ho "sanction" the act? He simply refased to invest himself with authority belonging to 
another tribunal. 



16 



ern); all these diflfering widely and essentially (as we have 
shown) from each other, in origin and characteristics. We 
have seen that none of the enactments concerning Jewish sla- 
very give any sanction to the iniquity of American slavery. 
But it is contended that as God never could countenance any- 
where what is wrong, it follows that^he having sanctioned slave- 
holding under the Levitical law, sanctions it now; therefore, 
says Mr. Van Dyke, ''slaveholding (now) is not sin." We must 
demur again and dispute with the Doctor. The premises may 
be in truth, but the conclusion is false. That bad word ''slave- 
holding" donH mean the same thing in the dif event places, and Mr. 
Van Dyke tvill persist in ignoring the difference between 
Jewish slavery and Southern, as to their " systems." 

To make a fair parallel, it would bp necessary for Mr. Van 
Dyke, or anybody else that may prove ingenious enough, to 
clearly establish that Southern slavery originated in righteous 
wars, entered upon at the command of God against barbarous 
nations, that had filled up the cup of their iniquity, and were 
to be subjected and exterminated; who occupied territory 
given by promise to another race, which in due time had come 
to take possession, and whom they resisted; whom having 
conquered, they then permitted to dwell among them, and, their 
conquerers denied, by restrictive enactment, the exercise of 
violence, in compelling servitude, they did " buy'' them; that 
the South have not invaded a foreign territory and carried off 
the unoffending inhabitants ; that the slavery of the South is 
not the fruit and legitimate offspring of man-stealing. 

This is a very hard task, I am aware, even for a devoted 
minister of a slavery Gospel, whose heart is so gratefully 
affected with the beauties of that "peculiar institution," that 
he passionately exclaims in the gushing exuberance of his 
overwhelming emotions, concerning those that buy and sell 
men as chattels: "My heart is knit to such men with the 
sympathy of Jonathan for David. The union between their 
hearts and mine can never be dissolved. Though my lot be 
cast in a colder clime, yet in the outgoings of that warm 



17 

affection to which space is nothing, I will ever say, Entreat me 
not to leave thee, for thy people shall be my people, and thy 
God shall be my God." I trust that some Christian church down 
South will heed the frantic prayer of this distressed and moan- 
ing exile, and give him a " call" where he may live and enjoy 
all the superabundant sweets of such paradisiacal relations. 

But it does not follow that what God sanctioned under the 
Mosaic dispensation, he sanctioned now, or that what was right 
for a Jew is lawful for a Christian. And although Mr. Van 
Dyke asserts that the authority of the Old Testament, in this 
matter of slavery, is of equal weight with Gospel requirements, 
it is mere assertion, and no proof. 

The fact is, that many things were allowed under Moses, 
and made the subjects of special enactments, that are for- 
bidden by the Gospel, or considered by all Christians to be 
wrong and sinful. It was right for a Jew to exact " eye for 
eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand." It were sin for a Chris- 
tian, and He who declared it right in the one case, declares it 
wrong in the other. The kinsman of a murdered person was 
constituted the avenger of blood, and could slay the murderer 
upon sight, without process of law. In a Christian land this 
is wholly unjustifiable, and annulled by the very spirit of the 
Gospel. 

By the law of Moses,''in certain cases criminals were stoned 
to death or burned with fire. Under no circumstances would 
such methods be adopted by a Christian people, nor looked 
upon as less than a barbarism and a sin. Polygamy was also 
extensively practised among the Jews, in both patriarchal and 
Mosaic dispensations ; and at the very time of the giving of 
the law, was to all intents and purposes as much an " institu- 
tion " of the Jews, as single marriage is among us. Yet it 
was not forbidden, nor disallowed by any restrictive enact- 
ments, nor limited by any rule or regulation as to the number 
of wives a man might have. I have marked the quibble by 
which Mr. Van Dyke attempts to get rid of facing the ready 
and accumulated proofs of the affirmative of the question. He 
2 



18 

says, " If it can be proved that the law of God, as jyromidgafed 
by Mo.ses, did sanction polygamy, I am prepared at once to 
say that polygamy is in itself no sin." (I earnestly hope that 
when it is proved he will not hasten to make confession, for 
he has said bad things enough from the pulpit about slavery, 
without giving infidels further license to become Mormons by 
commandment.) 

Here is the quibble, " as promulgated by Moses." In the 
letter of the law given at Sinai, polygamy is not found ; thei'C- 
fore (saj's Mr. Van Dyke) it was not sanctioned. It is a 
poor rule that will not work both ways. Let us apply this to 
Mr. Van Dyke's New Testament slavery. He cannot find a 
positive enactment in the Gospel incorporating it into the 
Christian economy, as it was incorporated into the Mosaic by 
Ex. 21 : 5, 6 : " By thine own words shalt thou be condemned." 

But polygamy ivas supjjorted by the civil and ecclesiastical 
authority of both the patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations. 
The patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were specially 
beloved of God, received commandments directly from Jehovah, 
and were obedient to him. The Lord said unto Abraham, 
" Walk before me and be thou perfect," and he was called the 
"friend of God " for his obedience. And he who so cheerfullj' 
offered up his only son a sacrifice to God, would doubtless as 
readily have dispensed with a plurality of wives, had it been 
offensive to Jehovah. He was never so commanded. All the 
ways of the heathen around him were forsaken, this was not. 

Another proof of Mr. Van Dyke's sophistry, and of the weak- 
ness of his position, is, the manner in which he attempts to dis- 
pose of this fact by saying: " It is true that some of the patri- 
archs had more wives than one ; and this fact is recorded. And 
so David committed murder and adultery ; and this fact is re- 
corded." 

There is a most important difference between the record of 
(his fact and this. David's sins are mentioned with undisguised 
abhorrence, and with the sentence of punishment attached; the 
patriarchs, their wives and children, are mentioned only with 



19 

honor. The patriarchs were the high priests of their religion, 
God's ministers, and received his commands for themselves and 
families, and their example in this matter contained the clear- 
est evidence of Jehovah's approval. Again, the ivhole Jewish 
nation icas born of polygamy, and the twelve pillars upon which 
it was built, were the children of many wives, by their father 
Jacob. And nearly all of these children were given in answer 
to earnest prayers, and were accepted and acknowledged, in 
their names and otherwise, as the favor of God. Read Gen. 29 
and 30 chaps. The Lord approved and blessed this relation. 
Gen. 35: 11, &c. "And God said unto Jacob (who was the 
possessor of four wives), I am God Almighty; be fruitful and 
multiply; a nation and a company of nations (the tribes) shall 
be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins." Is there 
not here evidence enough to satisfy the most skeptical ? But, 
further, it prevailed at the time of the giving of the law. It 
was not discountenanced by that law, but on the other hand it 
was recognized by an express command declaring that he who 
had two wives should not disinherit the child or children of one 
wife not beloved, in favor of those of another, beloved — Deut. 
21: 15, &c. 

The true intent and force of this passage Mr. Van Dyke at- 
tempts to put aside by a subterfuge. He says: " The nearest 
approach to such a precept (sanctioning polygamy) is found 
in Deut. 21: 15, ' If a man have two wives,' he shall do thus and 
so with the children." " If a man have two wives, is that the 
same as to say, A man may have two wives ? AVhen the law 
says, ' If a man smite his servant till he die,' is it the 
same thing as to sanction the beating of a slave to death ?" 
No, Mr. Van Dyke, it is not the same, but there is a very im- 
portance difference between the cases. Where it is written, 
" If a man smite his servant till he die," it goes right on to say, 
that he shall be punished. While, where it is written " if a man 
have two wives," it does not condemn nor intimate guilt. And 
the text does say the same, in substance, as that a man may have 
two wives, for it binds him to acknowledge the children of both 
wives as his legitimate and lawful heirs. 



20 

The punctuation of the passage is not where Mr. Van Dyke 
puts it, " if a man have two wives," stopping here, but " if a 
man have two wives, the one beloved and the other hated." 
Another passage, Ex. 21: 10, jDrovides for a plurality of wives. 

This is, in brief, the Scripture testimony on this subject. 
Strong and unequivocal, with not a flaw in the evidence, made 
by a single word of censure from God, lawgiver, nor prophet. 
Honored with the blessings of God upon its participators and 
its fruits and relations, the root and foundation of the Jewish 
nationality, covered by Jehovah's benediction, and with the 
authority civil and ecclesiastical of patriarchs and of the law. 
It stands upon the record that polygamy was a part of the Jewish 
system. 

Polygamy was laivful in Patriarchs and Jews ; but shall it 
be argued from this that it is right noiu ? Mr. Van Dyke may 
argue thus, for he unfortunately is in that dilemma, but we 
" have not so learned Christ." Polygamy has not been abrogated 
nor condemned by express enactment of the Gospel — nor was 
there need. The sjmnt of Christianity cries out against it as 
a crime, and the enlightened conscience of all Christendom 
unanimously proclaims it a crime against God and purity. But 
it ivas not sinful in the Jews ! And slavery is in the same 
category ; but it does not follow that because God regulated 
and allowed Jewish bondage theri, he necessarily allows it 7Wic, 
or would in anywise countenance the same, much less Southern 
slavery. The idea of advancing Judaism, in respect of au- 
thority, to the parallel of Christianity, is simply ridiculous, 
and in a Christian minister is evidence of unpardonable ignor- 
ance or misrepresentation. " How easy," says Mr. Van Dyke, 
" it would have been for God, if he regarded slaveholding 
(slavery) as sinful, in those days when his chosen people 
trembled before Mount Sinai, to have put the stigma of his 
disapprobation forever upon it." 

He did not regard such slaveholding as sinful, in a Jew, 
at such time. But now even that would not be indorsed by 
the gospel. The fact is ignored by this writer that the two 



21 

dispensations differ essentially, not only in mode, but in prin- 
ciple. 

The patriarchal and Mosaic were transition stages, leading- 
to a more perfect and complete system of morals and religion. 
They were dark and crude, not too proceed too far in advance 
of the limited ability of an ignorant and partially enlightened 
nation. 

Judaism was the green and immature fruit passing through 
the necessary changes to the ripe; and shall we " set our teeth 
on edge " by eating sour crabs when we may pluck the ripe and 
sweet fruit ? Nor do the changes and process of ripening 
carried on through those dispensations, argue that God has 
changed in nature or attributes, because he laid not upon his 
first people, ignorant and debased as they were, children in 
intelligence and moral capacity, in the infancy of their spirit- 
ual development and social education, the highest command- 
ments of purity and holiness, found in the New Testament. 
There are heights of purity which angels perceive, which, 
were our eyes opened to behold, and by commandment were 
laid upon us to attain, would sink us in despair, at the thought 
of the impossibility of obedience in our present condition. 
Yet to such heights glorified " spirits of just men made per- 
fect" soar with delight on easy wing, stripped of the leaden 
incumbrances of this, our present mode of existence. And if 
God withheld from the subjects of an opening and immature 
dispensation the higher requirements of an inward and prac- 
tical holiness, binding noio upon the subjects of a full and 
" glorious ministration," did he dissemble or deceive ? The 
measure of their obedience and required holiness was the com- 
mand given to them. 

But is no more required of a Christian than was required of 
a Jew ? Is he to be governed by no higher code of morals ? 
Is the body of Christianity to be deformed by the excrescences 
of barbarisms which the Jewish nation brought with it out of 
heathenism, and which, as tumors, were treated with the pre- 
scriptions of divine enactments, to prevent their spread, stop 
their growth, and finally absorb and destroy them ? 



22 

That sucli was the tendency and design of those regulations 
and restrictions concerning both slavery and polygamy, is 
proved by the undeniable fact that those institutions declined, 
and continued steadily to grow less and less, until the dis- 
integration of the whole structure was followed bj^ the com- 
plete ruin of the " institutions ;" and davery and j^olygamy 
ceased to exist among the Jews. 

Mr. Van Dyke ought to be content to let " Baal plead for 
himself," without gratuitously offering his services to incor- 
porate into a holier, purer system an obsolete regulation of 
ancient Judaism, for which even a Jew will not thank him. 

But let us permit the New Testament to give us its views of 
the character and comparative importance of that transient 
dispensation, and see whether the intense jealousy of Mr. Van 
Dyke for their authority now is very laudable in a Christian 
minister. Peter says. Acts: 15, 10, that Judaism put a " yoke 
iipon the necks^' of its subjects which " neither they nor their 
fathers were able to bear." But the jealous Doctor is not willing 
to let Peter settle the question, but would force the " yoke" 
upon our necks. 

Paul calls Judaism (2 Cor., c. 3), the "ministration of the 
letter, which killeth," the " ministration of condemnation and 
of death ;" that it had "no glory, by reason of the glory (of 
this dispensation) which excelleth," and declares that that 
" ministration is done aivay." In the Epistle to the Galatians he 
again compares the dispensations, which, for the benefit and 
instruction of such Jewish Christians as are on their journey 
back into the " wilderness" of " beggarly elements," and desire 
to be informed what will be their state in that land, I will 
quote. He says, " Abraham had two sons, one by a bond- 
maid, and the other by a free woman ; these are the two cove- 
nants, the one from Mount Sinai that tondeth to bondage ; the 
other is Jerusalem (the Christian dispensation) which is 
above, which is free, which is the mother of us all. So, breth- 
ren, we are not the children of the bond woman (Jews), but 
of the free" (Christians). " What saith the Scriptures, Cast 
Old the bond woman and her son ?" 



23 

So we will, Paul, by the grace of God. We reject Judaism. 
It has finished its purpose, been discarded by its founder, has 
passed away, and its institutions all are splintered into a 
thousand fragments. 

And thus we dispose of the vain and unrighteous attempt, 
to drag the dead and buried laws of a repudiated constitution 
into the service of Southern slavery. 

The arguments which Mr. Van Dj^ke has drawn from the 
New Testament in defense of slavery are very few and nega- 
tive. They are, first, that slavery existed at the time of 
Christ and his apostles, yet neither he nor they give one 
distinct and explicit denunciation of it, nor one precept requir- 
ing masters to emancipate their slaves. Second, that while 
idolatry, murder, adultery, theft, and other crimes were de- 
nounced, slavery was not. Third, that the apostles give direc- 
tions to slaves to treat their masters with all honor, thus re- 
cognizing the relations. We may well doubt, at the start, the 
truth and substantiality of any question, or statement, resting 
hopelessly for support, upon propositions so exclusively nega- 
tive in their character ; not a natural, limb to stand upon. 

They did not! did not! did not! But a "necessity was 
upon him," for neither he nor any one else can find in all the 
New Testament a single positive enactment, touching slavery 
and indorsing it, as was done under the Jewish dispensation. 

Let us conimwc to bear in mind what conclusion it is that 
the reverend gentleman seeks to force upon our acceptance from 
these negative premises. Thus, in the time of Christ and his 
apostles (Roman) slavery existed. It was not denounced 
by them ; therefore. Southern slavery is strictly in accordance 
with the precepts of the Gospel, sanctioned by the New Tes- 
tament, and opposition to this traffic, system, and relation, is 
infidelity, and " blasphemes God and his doctrine !" 

We briefly notice these points separately. First, slavery 
existed at the time of Christ and his apostles, yet neither he 
nor they give one distinct denunciation of it, nor one precept 
requiring masters to emancipate their slaves. 



24 

We have already given the reasons why Christ and his 
apostles did not meddle with the subject of a heathen insti- 
tution as slavery then was. His personal mission was exclu- 
sively to the Jews, and was devoted to the setting up of his 
new spiritual kingdom. 

Mr. Van Dyke well remarks that "slavery was intimately 
interwoven with the social and civil institutions of the 
empire." 

Slavery existed as the fruits of military conquest, and such 
appropriation of captives by their conquerors was the law or 
custom of all nations. It was part of national policy, of 
established temporal governments, with the oi'dinances, laws, 
and policy of which, neither Christ nor his apostles evei' med- 
dled, nor resided, nor spoke against, but always submitted to, as 
I have shown in the payment of the unjust tribute money, 
and taught, in the churches, that all subjects of such govern- 
ments (while subjects) were to pray for them, give thanks for 
them, and submit themselves to every ordinance of theirs, " for 
the Lord's sake." 

But will any one assert that their example in the paying of 
the tribute, and their positive injunctions to keep the ordinan- 
ces, respect the laws, and to pray for their heathen rulers — 
their not rebuking the many unjust, unholy, and cruel enact- 
ments in the code of the nations, was a sanctioning of the in- 
stitution contained in those laws ? 

Yet it is just on such flimsy negative proof that we are 
urged to swallow the monstrous proposition that Christ and 
his apostles indorsed slavery. Alas, " if the light that is in 
us become darkness, how great is that darkness." The intro- 
duction of a new kingdom, an internal power, which was made 
up of such elements as these, " Peace on eartli, good-will to 
(all) men ;" "God hath made of one blood all nations that 
dwell upon the earth ;" "As ye would that men should do to 
you, do ye even so to tliem," was the means and method by 
which God intended to sap the foundations of all cruelty, oppres- 
sion and wrong, without putting his church and people in hostile 



25 

array against civil governments, in the councils of which Chris- 
tianity exerted no controlling or restraining influence. By the 
spread of its doctrines, and spirit of peace and good-will to men, 
it was to prevent aggressive wars, made for conquest and spoil, 
and which was the 7'oot of the whole system of slavery exist- 
ing at the time of Christ. And it has accomjolkhed this. 
Wherever there is found a nation so generally imbued with 
the faith of the Gospel that on its state papers are written 
" in the year of grace," or " in the year of our Lord," there 
the cause and root of slaveiy exists no more. Slavery has 
ceased, and property in man, by any right, is denied. The 
only remaining melancholy and last exception this world will 
ever see, is in a section and minor part of this republic. 
Human slavery is no part of the body or system of Chris- 
tianity, is not provided for, nor supervised, nor dclined, nor 
recognized by a single positive enactment in the Gospel. And 
the man who seeks, by plundering the musty records of obso- 
lete Judaism, and taking thence a decree, that died from a 
total loss of vitality, was dead and buried two thousand 
years ago, and attempts to incorporate its dry and lifeless 
bones into the pure and healthy form of Christ's body, that he 
may baptize sin, sin against God and against humanity, Avith 
a Christian name, and take it into the fellowship of the church 
of God, as a living member of Christ's body, and an institu- 
tion of Christ's care, " as an important and necessary means 
of the redemption of the heathen " — I leave that man to the 
judgment of a holy and righteous Judge, who has said, " Woe 
to him that putteth darkness for light." 

But it is asked, "Why is there not one command to masters 
to emancipate their slaves ?" 

In the very next sentence (page 18) Mr. Van Dyke furnishes 
me with the most satisfactory answer. " The Apostle knew 
that for the present, emancipation would be no real benefit to 
the slave." That is precisely the fact, and what was not a 
" real benefit," in view of his embarrassing circumstances, he 
was not required to perform. And this leads me to remark 



26 

that it is not instant emancipation for which we contend, but 
AGAINST SLAVERY AS SIN, in the CORE and in the root, that wo war. 
Another ray of returning reason in Mr. Van Dyke is evidenced 
on page 20, where he says, " I incline cordially to the current 
opinion of the church that slavery is not (intended by God) as 
the final destiny of the slave." Even so. 

The second proposition in the New Testament argument for 
slavery is, that while idolatry, murder, adultery, theft, and 
other crimes were denounced, slavery was not. The answer 
to this has been anticipated in the preceding argument, but we 
-have a few words to add. Mr. Van Dyke says (page 16, &c.) : 
" It is a matter of fact that idolatry and the vices connected 
with it, were even more intimately interwoven with the social 
and civil life of the Roman Empire than slavery was." "Did 
the apostles abstain from preaching against idolatry?" No, 
and the reason is very obvious. Idolatry was essentially a 
matter of sjnrifiial nature, " interwoven with the social and civil 
life " it is true, but interwoven as the spiritual element of that 
life, and therefore properly within the legitimate province of 
the mission of the Gospel. The doctrine of the " one only true 
and living God" is the beating heart of Christianity, the spring 
and source of its power. The reception of this belief was the 
first necessary step to the experience of its power, to believe 
that "He is." 

Idolatry came in contact with this faith : two spiritual powers 
met in opposition. The issue of the conflict was the future 
and eternal destiny of the souls of men. The subject was 
beyond the province and reach of civil legislation. It involved 
the question of obedience to the mandate of the Supreme Ruler, 
King of kings, and Lord of lords, not revoking the authority 
he had given to earthly powers, of ruling in temporal things, 
but proclaiming that " God is a spirit," and that all men must 
"worship him in spirit and in truth." The Gospel is a sjiiritual 
force, and wars "not against flesh and blood, but against (spi- 
ritual) principalities and powers." Such was idolatry. At 
cost of property and life, the apostles and first disciples con- 



27 



tended for (this) "faith once delivered to the saints," and for 
this faith they could burn. Slavery, a temporal institution, 
stood in no such opposing relation to the progress of the Gospel. 
Murder, adultery, theft, and such like crimes, were specially 
and wholly matters of individual guilt, reprehension and con- 
demnation, proceeding from "within the heart," and proper 
matters of spiritual supervision. 

They were not national or civil institutions, were not pro- 
tected by civil enactments, but were against the peace of the 
commonwealth, the safety and happiness of individuals, and 
contrary even to the government among heathen. 

We are further told that the apostles give directions to 
slaves to "honor their masters," thereby acknowledging the 
relation. This brings us to a consideration of the text of Mr. 
Van Dyke's discourse, in the discussion of which this point is 

involved. 

The reverend gentleman's text is taken from 1 Tim. 6 : 1,5: 
" Let as many servants," &c. He quotes no less than five 
different commentators of as many denominations, to prove 
that "servants under the yoke" means slaves. Admitted, 
what use does he make of the fact ? Why, we are told that 
by these directions to such, touching their conduct towards 
their masters, Paul " intimates in the strongest form that he 
expects the relation to continuer Wonderful sagacity, and 
therefore slavery is right, according to the Gospel-a very 
logical conclusion, very. Paul " intimates " no such thing and 
to put such a wholly gratuitous interpretation upon the Apos- 
tle's words, is " putting darkness for light." 

The Apostle is giving simply plain directions to "servants 
under the yoke" how to govern themselves ^^ xvMe in such 
relation;" the application of his words extends no further. 
He is not discussing nor noticing the contingencies of that rela- 
tion This will not be denied, that noivhere does the Apostle 
eulogize the relation, roam the slave xot to seek his liberty, con- 
demn the attempt or desire to be free, but he P^^iti^^ly says 
to these, " If thou mayest be made free, use it rather ^ R^n. 7, -1 . 



28 

The text contains just such " wholesome words " as any 
sound-minded and pious Abolitionist minister would preach 
to a congregation of slaves, South, should the Christian popu- 
lation of that section that are not " governed by the fickle and 
corrupt tribunal of reason and humanity,'^ see it to be con- 
sistent with their enlightened views on liberty of speech to 
allow him to preach at all. If a chaplain of a prison should, 
in a discourse to the prisoners, say, " Count your masters 
worthy of all honor," would the language be considered as 
containing an implied reference to the " continuance of the 
relation" ? He is speaking of present duty growing out of 
present circumstances, and his words would apply with as 
much force to the man whose term of sentence was to expire 
in one day as to him who was to continue a prisoner for years. 
The fact that the warden was in a few hours no longer to be 
his master, did not release him from the obligation to submit 
in peaceful obedience to the requirement of his present sub- 
jected condition. 

When John the Baptist, upon being asked by the Eoman 
soldiers (Luke 3 : 14), "And what shall we do?" answered, 
" Be content with your wages," did he " intimate in the strongest 
form" that their masters gave them what was "just and 
right " ? They received about three half-pence a day, and were 
disposed to murmur and rebel because of the insufficiency of 
their pay. John, who had come as a "preacher of righteous- 
ness," and not as a reformer of civil and military misrule, 
simply gives advice best suited to their case under the circum- 
stances, in view of their utter inability to effect any change 
to advantage by revolt and commotion. Paul says that what 
is " lawful is not (always) expedients 

Peter writes, " Servants, be subject to your masters with all 
fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. 
For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience towards God 
endure grief, suffering lorong fully,'" " for if when ye do well and 
suffer for it, yc take it patiently, this is acceptable to God." 
Now is^his indorsing tirong ? docs xorong become ri^/i^ because 



29 

we are divinely instructed to " endure it," and " take it 
patiently" for "conscience towards God"? Does cheerful, 
patient submission to the exactions consequent upon occupy- 
ing a subordinate and servile relation, imply an acknoioledg- 
ment of the lawfulness of such relation ? Certainly not. And 
neither do the Apostle's words " intimate " in any " form " that 
" he expects the relation to continue," when he gives directions 
to " servants under the yoke " how they are to conduct while 
sustaining such relation. 

Let me state a case. A man came to Jesus and requested, 
"Master, speak to my brother that he divide the inheritance 
with me." Jesus answered, " Man, who made me a judge or a 
ruler over you ?" Now did the Saviour, by such language, " in- 
timate in the strongest form " that the man unlaufully claimed 
a division of the property ? 

According to the logic of Mr. Van Dyke, the refusing brother 
should have afterwards grounded his further right of posses- 
sion on the assumption that the Great Prophet and Law-giver, 
" intimated in the strongest form " that he " exjyected " him " to 
continue " in possession, inasmuch as he denied his brother's 
claim to any part, by refusing to adjudge in the matter. AVere 
he unlawfully seized of the estate (so Mr. Van Dyke's logic 
would run) and detained from his brother that which in justice 
belonged to him, the Saviour would certainly have embraced so 
favorable an opportunity of denouncing the wrong-doer who 
held his possessions by fraud. Whereas, the truth is, that the 
answer of Christ bore only upon the matter of the unlawful- 
ness of the man's contemplated mode of redress ; which was 
the substitution in the place of the lawful civil jurisdiction of 
a judgeship, which,'howevor righteous, and according to truth 
should be its decisions, would have been a usurpation of au- 
thority, and an unwarrantable interference (according to 
Christ's precepts) with the prerogatives of a regularly consti- 
tuted government, the lawfulness, or at least expediency of 
which, was acknowledged by Him, who, by his inspired apos- 
tles, wrote, " submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for 



30 

the LorcTs sake^' (not because it was "just and right"), 
" whether it be unto kings as supremo, or unto governors." 

Mr. Van Dyke is ratlier unfortunate in quoting Dr. Adam 
Clarke, who, in his comment on the reverend gentleman's text, 
and which comment he quotes to sustain his forced interpretation 
and bearing of this passage, takes the precise views we have 
presented. "The word doidoi (servants) here means slaves 
converted to the Christian faith; and by despotai (masters), 
we are to understand the heathen masters of those Christian- 
ized slaves. Even these in such circumdances and under such 
domination, are commanded to treat their masters with all 
honor and respect, that the name of God, by which they were 
called, and the doctrine of God, Christianity, which they had 
professed, might not be blasphemed, might not be evil spoken 
of, in consequence of their improper conduct." " The civil state 
in which a man was before his conversion is not altered by that 
conversion, nor does the grace of God absolve him from any 
claims which either the state or his neighbor may have on him. 
All these outward things remain unaltered" (by such conver- 
sion). This is, indeed, a "clear exposition," and contains 
"good doctrine, wholesome words." It teaches that "two 
wrongs do not make a right;" that the conversion of slaves 
was not designed to inaugurate rebellion against civil author- 
ity, and " make bad worse," by raising them against their 
masters because they had become " baptized disciples." 

This, certainly, would have been a blaspheming of that holy 
name and doctrine which they professed, which taught humil- 
ity, to " resist not evil," to " endure grief, suffering wrong- 
fully," to be " patient under affliction." Whatever " claims^' a 
state may have upon us, we are bound by the law of Christ to 
fulfill, and we are to yield obedience to its law " ivhile under 
such domination^' But does such requirement deprive us of the 
use of all peaceable and righteous means to be released from 
such "domination"? Does St. Paul or Dr. Clarke, in either 
text or comment, or in any other of their writings, speak against 
the exercise of such " inalienable right" f 'Tis Paul's advice 



31 

to " servants under the yoke," " If thou mayest be free, use it 
rather." The mode and time of release from unjust civil 
requirements will be indicated by the favoring circumstances 
of our position, and by prudently and wisely following the 
intuitions of enlightened conscience. Suffering wrong does 
not make lawful, much less expedient, all means we may find 
at hand to effect a release ; "we are not to do evil that good 
may come." The right to liberty, and the use of improjier 
means to obtain it, are considerations vastly differing in many 
respects. 

The conscience of enlightened humanity in its infallible 
intuitions, sits in stern judgment against human bondage, and 
condemns it. And with the advancement of the light, doctrines, 
and spirit of Christianity has been the quickening of its per- 
ceptions and sensibility. Where civil domination has been too 
strongly opposed to allow its expression, it has waited until 
" in the course" and changes "of human events," it has made 
its way into the halls of legislation, where it could speak out, 
and had power and room to act, when it has by " constitutional 
means" changed odious laws, and " proclaimed liberty to the 
captive." And this it ever has and ever will do, wherever it 
possesses the lawful authority, despite the clamor and protest 
of the upholders of wickedness and "pleaders for Baal." 

To-day an amazing spectacle is presented to the eyes of the 
world. Every Christian nation of the earth, inspired by the 
quickening influence of conscience, enlighted by the Word of 
God, from which Mr. Van Dyke takes his text, and professes 
to bring his proofs in support of uncompensated human chattel 
slavery, are washing their hands from all its defilments, and 
purging their possessions from the curse ; while in this land, 
which has boasted to the world of its foundations of liberty, 
of its establishment in the principles of " equal and exact justice 
to all men ;" here, where that "great light of the world," the 
Bible, has thrown out upon us all around its " healing rays," 
" bringing men to a knowledge of the truth," concerning our 
duty to aid in the lifting up of the degraded of our kind to the 



32 

true level of redeemed humanity, professed Christians and 
Christ's ministers are giving over the Bible and the religion of 
our fathers to the ridicule of infidels, by earnest attempts to 
prove that this sin, from which all Christian nations, except one 
shameful exception, have washed their hands, is indorsed by 
divine sanction, and should be sustained as an " institution " 
of " humanity ^^ and Christian jjhilanfhj'ojn/ ! "Woe to them 
that put bitter for sweet, that say of evil it is good." 

I now wish to offer a few remarks upon an epistle of the New 
Testament, frequently dragged into this discussion in support 
of the doctrine that the apostles supported the system of 
slavery, the Epistle to Philemon. And I offer this epistle as 
the basis of a fugitive slave law, at this distracting time of 
compromises. 

This letter cannot be employed to favor the return of fugi- 
tive slaves against their consent. Because it is, first, an excep- 
tional case, founded on the peculiar circumstances arising out 
of the Christian relations of the parties. Philemon was an 
eminent and devoted Christian, the intimate friend of Paul, and 
fully confided in by him to act in the matter according to the 
Apostle's dictation. 

Second, it was an act in which the fugitive concurred, a volun- 
tary surrender on his part, evidenced satisfactorily by his 
being the hearer of Paul's letter. Third, it was exclusively a 
Christian transaction, done without an appeal to, or through the 
intervention of the legal authorities — a church matter. (And 
yet men tell us that the Church ought not to meddle with 
slavery.) Fourth, if this exceptional case argues the sanction- 
ing of slaycry by the Apostle, by the same rule and process 
circumcision becomes a part of the Gospel dispensation, for 
Paxil circumcised Timothy. And Jewish ceremonial purification 
is also incorporated into the New Testament by his example. 
Paul underwent the process in the temple during seven days, 
the term prescribed by Moses. Yet, in one of his epistles, he 
says to Christians, " If ye be circumcised, Christ availeth you 
nothing." Fifth, Onesimus was not returned as a fugitive 



33 

slave, nor was he sent back to his former master to continue in 
the relation of " servant nnder the yoke." 

Paul writes to Philemon, " I beseech thee for my son, thou 
therefore receive him that is mine own bowels, whom I would 
have retained (having the power), but without thy mind would 
I do nothing ; that thou shouldst receive him forever, not now 
as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved especially to 
me, but how much more to thee, both in thefiesh and in the Lord. 
If thou count ME a partner, receive him as myself." 

We may safely trust to the provisions of a fugitive slave 
law based on the principle andjjrad/ee of the above epistle. 

I have a few words to say upon the opinion which Mr, Van 
Dyke expresses concerning some ministers, of whose larger 
congregations he seems to be jealous and whom he wishes 
to get off to Harper's Ferry to dispose of summarily, and to 
give them opportunity to show proper and full proof of 
their courage. Abolitionists, doubtless, differ much in opinion 
as to the manner in which slavery should be disposed of. 
Agreement in principle is not always followed by concert of 
action. But it does not follow that because one man " goes to 
practice the preaching" (of abolitionism) at "Harper's Ferry," 
in the face of the law's terrors, he is " more consistent" or " more 
heroic" than he who, occupying his divinely-appointed place 
in the sacred desk in the city of Brooklyn, preaches the same 
doctrine (that slavery is sin), "in brave words, amid applaud- 
ing multitudes." 

'Tis mean to taunt a man with cowardice because he does 
not step out of his law/id place, to take an unlawful, unchris- 
tian position, or seek to do good in an unlawful manner. We 
venture that if the Eev. Mr. Van Dyke will give a j^ledge on 
behalf of the Christian slaveholders of the South, or any part 
of it, that the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher shall be allowed to 
preach his sentiments against slavery, as publicly and as un- 
disturbed as he himself was allowed to utter his slavery dis- 
course in the midst of a city of " infidels and rabid abolition- 
ists," it will not be long before the opportunity will be em- 
3 



34 

braced by him and many others. Mr. Van Dyke walks the 
streets of a city filled with " infidel, Bible-rejecting- abolition- 
ists," and preaches among them his extreme pro-slavery doc- 
trines, without a fear to raise a hair of his head. And he 
knows that this right and privilege, granted to him here, and 
for his protection in which, the whole civil and military force 
of the country would, by law, be granted, Mr. Beecher, or any 
■other honest American citizen, would be denied and forbidden 
to lisp a word upon the subject of anti-slavery sentiment 
among the "Christian slaveholders" of the South, under the 
penalty of being deprived of his liberty, tarred and feathered, 
and put in danger of his life ! Alas for the Christian gentle- 
ness of the spirit of the '^divine institution" — "by their fruits 
ye shall know them." Is it the only satisfactory proof of 
courage to put one's head in a hungry lion's mouth ? It was 
the suggestion of divine wisdom to Moses "to take the serpent 
by the tail" and it is neither cowardice nor "carnal wisdom" 
that constrains good men to follow this wholesome suggestion, 
and keep away from the venomous fangs of Southern slave- 
power, for at last it " hiteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an 
adde7\" 



r 



'/ 




i 



K: »«i$i U-*. ■*{r 



OF CONGRESS 

Mi 



